Not sure why you think it's a ""gay" question. Just wondering how different folks think of the concept of evil. Some folks think it's just a state of mind, others figure there's a spiritual component, while others still think there's no such thing. Where do you stand?

Social morality is defined by law. What is legal is what is deemed socially acceptable. Is your personal morality defined by law also, or by religious doctrine, or by intuition, by mood, or by some other criteria? I find that your kind have a predictable group mentality that bounces between the bandwagon effect and an incessant drive to be contrary. How this relates to individual morality or ethical code is a sociological point of interest.

Lethal Dose wrote:What is legal is what is deemed socially acceptable.

That depends on what one calls "acceptable". I suppose it is "acceptable" to give up your wallet when you are outnumbered by armed assassins all aiming their weapons at you demanding your wallet. That is a useful comparison to "legality" as a matter of certain interests creating law to support their interests over what is preferable to the public good.

Lethal Dose wrote:Is your personal morality defined by law also, or by religious doctrine, or by intuition, by mood, or by some other criteria?

Its simply defined by what is right. That has its basis in logic & cognition and it is limited by ignorance, which is a shared attribute of all humans.

Lethal Dose wrote: I find that your kind have a predictable group mentality that bounces between the bandwagon effect and an incessant drive to be contrary. How this relates to individual morality or ethical code is a sociological point of interest.

So what is illegal may be considered moral then. That is if it adheres to your concept of what is logical.

Lethal Dose wrote:What is legal is what is deemed socially acceptable.

"Woodsman wrote:That depends on what one calls "acceptable". I suppose it is "acceptable" to give up your wallet when you are outnumbered by armed assassins all aiming their weapons at you demanding your wallet. That is a useful comparison to "legality" as a matter of certain interests creating law to support their interests over what is preferable to the public good.

The example you give is a no-brainer, but sometimes things aren't so straight forward.

Lethal Dose wrote:Is your personal morality defined by law also, or by religious doctrine, or by intuition, by mood, or by some other criteria?

Woodsman wrote:Its simply defined by what is right. That has its basis in logic & cognition and it is limited by ignorance, which is a shared attribute of all humans.

Yes, apparently some much more than others. Fortunately, I don't count myself among "all humans" (or any for that matter). So what does your "Logic and cognition" say about such hot-button issues as abortion and gay marriage? My post on "Abortion and World Hunger" suggests an extremely logical way to deal with both. The solution therefore, by your reasoning, may be considered moral.

Lethal Dose wrote: I find that your kind have a predictable group mentality that bounces between the bandwagon effect and an incessant drive to be contrary. How this relates to individual morality or ethical code is a sociological point of interest.

Why you people should be offended by such terms as "Your kind" where it is applicable is just another one of your idiosyncrasies. It simply means, "Those who are not like me" which is something I'd think you'd be in agreement with, albeit for different reasons.

Morality, like the laws that it spawns, is priority driven. There are those naive enough to believe that these very "human" priorities have something to do with the collective good of the species. (I can't help but laugh every time I think about those morons). There were times in the past where it was considered ones moral prerogative and in fact their spiritual duty to smite those who did not believe in the same religious doctrine that they had customized to justify their petty bloodlust. To do otherwise was the epitome of immoral. The movement allowed countless people to kill and torture others of their species, which satisfied the true nature shared by "all humans", and was therefore also logical. At least for them it was. Perhaps not so much for their victims, but they didn't matter because the majority chose them not to matter, and in a true democracy, majority rules. Gawd bless Democracy!

Who is online

Please note that the topics discussed, opinions expressed and/or information provided in this forum are those of fellow forum participants only. Neither Robert Young Pelton, nor ComeBackAlive.com Inc., nor Ingle International Inc., nor any other person or entity involved in the creation or maintenance of this site, takes any responsibility or provides any endorsement for the topics discussed, opinions expressed or information provided in this forum. Any advice or information taken from this forum is entirely at your own risk.